Posts
Comments

Your money, not very hard at work

Aug 17th, 2007 by Taylor Armerding

I’m driving up Dale Street in North Andover this morning, past Smolak Farm. I come around a curve, and ahead of me I see the road has been closed due to paving. There are several barricades across the street. There is a sign that says “Road Closed.” There is an arrow pointing left, telling me which way to take the detour. I turn on my left turn signal.
But yes, there is also a cop there, standing behind the barricades. As I approach, with my signal blinking, his arm comes up, and he points me to the left.
Gee, how would I, or any other driver, have ever gotten past that intersection without the cop pointing the same way as the signs?
This is an officer making somewhere between $30 and $40 an hour, to do a pointless, unnecessary activity - I can’t dignify it by calling it a job.
Tell me, taxpayers - is there a much more absurd use of public safety staffers than the classic “traffic detail?” Is there a much more idiotic way to waste money? The gravy for these details runs into the millions.
Tell me - can anyone say with a straight face that this has anything to do with public safety? This is about money - your money, which is now their money.
And tell me: Is there any chance of this changing? Of course not. This is what the police union wants. It’s written into their contract, which your elected leaders signed. And your elected leaders are too afraid of the union to even try to change it.

Posted in Taylor Armerding | Comments

  • David
    Two things in response to this post.

    1. In Connecticut, among other states, road detail is handled by citizens who take a short training course, not by the police. They make good money for the time they are out there but not near the money our police officers make.

    2. In terms of North Andover, let us not forget that Daniel Lannen, while not allowed to vote on police-related matters, is a police officer and a member of the Bard of Selectmen and I highly doubt his relationship to that board has a negative impact upon contract negotiations. What would we be saying if this were a teacher on the school committee?
  • jacrlsn
    Just another political boondoggle. You said it, the politicians (who we unfortunately elected) blessed it and now they are either afraid to challenge it or don't want to. Public employment is the biggest and pretty soon if something isn't done to downsize government we'll all work for it. There will be no more dreaded private sector.
    They all moan about medical costs and how its destroying budgets, but how many of them (the politicians) are bringing it to the bargaining table.If they all began bargaining medical premiums and police details tomorrow, it would still be a number of years before it is bled out.
    We need term limits; as long as we reelect the buggers, they're going to tuck it to us.
  • Tim
    Well this ongoing issue seems to be just that...on going. We have a problem here in Haverhill with SPEEDING! People are in a rush to go nowhere and they are putting all our lives in danger doing it. Now why cant this officer (and others) take the time to patrol our streets and actually "enforce" the law, Protect and Serve as promised. it seems to me, and many others that the random act of staging a speed trap is just not working. We need enforcement at its toughest. I dont mean to turn this into my rant but wouldnt this bring revenue and safety instead of "costing" it?
  • Skip
    Um, aren't traffic details are paid for by the construction companies and not tax dollars? (Go ahead. Look it up).
  • Thanks to Skip, for a question/comment raised by lots of people. Yes, the "direct" payment for the detail comes from the contractor, but it all trickles down to the taxpayer. If it is a project being done by the town or city, the details add to the price the town pays the contractor. If they are paid by a utility, it all comes back to us in higher rates.
    There is no free lunch. And there are no "free" police details.
  • Tim
    Trust me, we all pay for it in the long run so it eventually it does become OUR MONEY!
  • Scott McNamara
    A couple of points in favor of police details.

    Does anyone really believe that if police details ceased to exist our utility rates would decrease?

    What would it cost to hire flaggers? Probably, $15 an hour for the flagger and another $15 an hour for the company. Don't forget to add any associated insurance costs.

    Most cities and towns charge the private companies a administration fee (usually 10%). This revenue eventually makes its way to the general fund.

    Consider how many times you have read about police officers on details who end up intervening in a criminal event or helping out a citizen in need.

    Lastly, will Taylor Amerding ever write a column that is either pro union or pro police.
  • Andrew
    While it may seem absurd to hire a trained police officer for traffic detail, there are some indirect benefits over hiring a high-school drop out to wave a flag to direct traffic. Two that quickly come to mind are:

    1. Maybe, just maybe, having a police officer at a construction site reduces speeding, accidents, and road rage. The frequency of accidents can probably be analyzed, comparing the statistics with other states that do not require police details for road construction.

    2. Town governments and the state may benefit because they do not have to pay police officers as much as they would if this 'perk' were not available. The practice also provides more police presence than would otherwise be possible.
blog comments powered by Disqus